A right-wing influencer got more than he bargained for during a livestream in Philadelphia when a passerby challenged him in a heated, curse-laden exchange.Jack Posobiec was in Philadelphia on Friday outside Independence Hall as the city held its Red, White, & Blue To-Do, a citywide patriotic celebration tied to the July 4 weekend. As Posobiec was in the middle of his stream, a man in a purple shirt can be heard off-camera shouting, "You are the enemy!"Posobiec, a Turning Point USA-aligned influencer and Human Events host known for spreading the debunked "Pizzagate" hoax, has long crusaded against birthright citizenship. The clash came days after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in a 6-3 ruling, striking down Trump's executive order, a defeat that drew fury from Trump allies.Posobiec invited the angry gentleman to join him on camera as the man shouted curse words over the right trying to overturn birthright citizenship."Sir, there's no cursing. No cursing," Posobiec insisted. "Can you do no cursing?"The man delivered a blunt response."Probably not."The man informed Posobiec that his mother was English and his father was Irish."Do I get to stay in the country when you guys pass laws that kick out all the Irish and all the Italians and all the people of color?" the man demands to know, pointing a finger.The man added that conservatives have four votes to overturn birthright citizenship, echoing warnings from some analysts that the fight is far from over."Oh I can't wait. It's gonna be great," Posobiec exclaims. "For illegal aliens. You understand it's for illegal aliens, right?"The man fired back, "It's not. You guys are white anglo-saxon protestant white supremacists."The passerby got more agitated, accusing Posobiec of voting for the wrong people when the far-right provocateur insisted he was "Catholic and Polish.""I'm not allowed to vote for who I want to, Sir?" Posobiec retorts. "How is that freedom?""You vote for someone who wants to kick you out of the country," the bewildered man responds.As the man starts shouting obscenities again, Posobiec insists birthright citizenship will be overturned because it's unlawful."We're having a great day, and you're screaming in front of children!" Posobiec complains.Crazy lib tried to scream at the Poso family in Philly Even my kids were dunking on him pic.twitter.com/xMy3L9bdSN— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) July 3, 2026
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt blasted progressive Democrats during an appearance on Fox News’ “Jesse Watters Primetime,” warning that they are pushing a “full-blown communist revolution.” […]
President Donald Trump is once again hawking a company in which he owns stock. Trump announced Thursday that stock in Micron Technology Inc., a semiconductor company, had leapt nine points on the stock market following the company’s commitment to donate $250 million to the president’s Trump Accounts, the individual savings vehicle for eligible American citizens under age 18.“Thank you Micron!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Trump’s thanks aren’t just on behalf of America’s children—it seems that the president personally benefited from the stock’s sudden rise. Trump’s recently released financial disclosures from 2025 revealed that the president already owned between $1.67 million and $6.65 million worth of stock in Micron. In March, as the administration was making preparations to launch the Trump Accounts, Trump purchased between $215,000 and $550,000 in Micron stock, according to MeidasTouch. In a press release Tuesday, Micron said the donation was the “largest corporate commitment of its kind.” At the same time, the company is facing a federal class action lawsuit over allegations of collusion and price-fixing with other chip manufacturers.In 2025, the president raked in loads of cash in the stock market by buying or selling a whopping 21,000 times with companies he talks about publicly, such as Nvidia and Intel. And Trump has a history of manipulating the stock market by boosting certain companies on social media. This also isn’t the first time the president has attempted to boost a company tied to Trump Accounts. In December, Dell pledged a $6.2 billion commitment to the accounts. A few months later, Trump purchased at least $1 million in Dell stock, and then went on a rant about buying Dell computers.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the federal government cannot cap how much a political party spends in direct coordination with its own candidates. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission struck down a Federal Election Campaign Act provision that had limited coordinated party expenditures since 1974, overruling the court’s 2001 decision […]
In its 6-3 Trump v. Slaughter ruling released on Monday, June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court's GOP-appointed supermajority decided that President Donald Trump enjoys considerable power when it comes to his ability to fire members of independent regulatory agencies. The ruling rejected the High Court's Humphrey's Executor v. United States precedent of 1935, and Peter M. Shane — a scholar at the New York University School of Law — views Trump v. Slaughter as a major "triumph" for a "radical" far-right doctrine known as the "unitary executive theory."The unitary executive theory, promoted by many MAGA Republicans, favors a very powerful executive branch for the federal government. But critics of the theory, including conservative New York Times columnist David French, see it as unconstitutional and anti-checks and balances.The "Slaughter" in Trump v. Slaughter was Rebecca Slaughter, who Trump fired from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The High Court ruled that Trump was well within her right to fire her.Shane is highly critical of the Robert Court's Trump v. Slaughter ruling, which he sees as a recipe for presidential overreach."In the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority, the FTC 'unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested,'" Shane explains. "As a result, he said, Rebecca Slaughter 'served as the President's subordinate at the FTC — and that the President was entitled to cut her tenure short.' In so concluding, the Court explicitly overruled the unanimous 1935 decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held exactly the opposite with regard to the same agency…. The Court's decision extends to all independent regulatory agencies, not just the FTC. Its central premise is that the president is constitutionally entitled to control all exercises of executive power — the 'unitary executive theory.'"Shane continues, "Roberts defined 'executive power' as broadly as is possible: 'When an agency executes a congressional mandate against private parties,' he wrote, 'it exercises executive power — no ifs, ands, or quasis about it.' Because all of the regulatory agencies created by Congress issue rules and orders that affect private parties, they all would appear to exercise executive power within the Roberts definition."Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Barack Obama appointee, was among the three dissenters in Trump v. Slaughter — and Shane shares her concerns. "It is not hard to imagine how a creative president could use his newfound control over all agencies," Shane writes. "As (Justice Neil) Gorsuch points out, giving presidents unfettered control over the specialized agencies allows a retributive chief executive to launch attacks on his opponents from multiple directions…. A Court tilted against regulation has positioned itself as the ultimate, nondeferential arbiter of when legal challenges to the president are even permissible and whether those challenges have merit. The Court can also tell Congress if measures the legislative branch thought 'necessary and proper' to constrain the executive went too far."Shane continues, "Justice Sonia Sotomayor is certainly correct in stating that 'the result' of Slaughter 'is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before.' One might, however, say the same about the Roberts Court itself."
